# EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 420161005
- **title:** EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2016-07-21
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 191.5(a), 192.459, 192.463(a), 192.465(a), 192.475(b), 192.605(a), 192.707(a), 192.735(a), 192.739(a), 192.743(a), 192.805(a), 192.805(b).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420161005.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420161005.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420161005
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420161005
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 191.5(a),  192.459,  192.463(a),  192.465(a),  192.475(b),  192.605(a),  192.707(a),  192.735(a),  192.739(a),  192.743(a),  192.805(a),  192.805(b). The case was opened on 2016-07-21 and is reported as closed as of 2018-01-03. Proposed civil penalty: $110,700. Assessed civil penalty: $110,700. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

420161005_Closure Letter_01032018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161005/420161005_Closure%20Letter_01032018.pdf

420161005_Closure Letter_01032018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161005/420161005_Closure%20Letter_01032018_text.pdf

420161005_Final Order_12292016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161005/420161005_Final%20Order_12292016.pdf

420161005_Final Order_12292016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161005/420161005_Final%20Order_12292016_text.pdf

420161005_NOPV PCP PCO_07212016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161005/420161005_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_07212016.pdf

420161005_NOPV PCP PCO_07212016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161005/420161005_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_07212016_text.pdf

420161005_Operator Response to Notice_08252016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161005/420161005_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_08252016.pdf

420161005_Final Order_12292016_text.pdf

December 29, 2016
Mr. Steven J. Kean
President and Chief Executive Officer
Kinder Morgan, Inc.
1001 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002-5089
Re: CPF No. 4-2016-1005
Dear Mr. Kean:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violations, assesses a civil penalty of $110,700, and specifies actions that need to be taken by El
Paso Natural Gas Company, LLC to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. El Paso
Natrual Gas Company, LLC is owned by Kinder Morgan, Inc. In addition, the Final Order finds
that El Paso Natural Gas Company, LLC has completed some of the actions specified in the
Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order to
comply with the pipeline safety regulations. Further, this is to acknowledge receipt of your
payment of the full penalty amount, by wire transfer dated August 24, 2016. When the
remaining terms of the compliance orders are completed, as determined by the Director,
Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by
certified mail is effective as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Roderick M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS
Mr. Gary Buchler, Chief Operating Officer, Kinder Morgan Natural Gas Division
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
El Paso Natural Gas Company, LLC, )
a Kinder Morgan Company, ) CPF No. 4-2016-1005
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From November 19, 2013 through August 22, 2014, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117,
representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office
of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted on-site pipeline safety inspections of the facilities and
records of El Paso Natural Gas Company, LLC (EPNG or Respondent) in Arizona, New Mexico,
and Texas. EPNG is owned by Kinder Morgan.1 EPNG’s approximately 10,200-mile pipeline
system transports natural gas from the San Juan, Permian and Anadarko basins to California.2 In
addition, EPNG moves product to Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and
northern Mexico.3
As a result of the inspections, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated July 21, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included several warning items
pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed
finding that EPNG had committed four violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192, and proposed assessing
a civil penalty of $110,700 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering
Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The eight warning items
required no further action, but warned EPNG to correct the probable violations or face possible
enforcement action.
EPNG responded to the Notice by letter dated August 25, 2016 (Response). The company did
not contest the allegations of violation, but did provide additional information regarding the
1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (July 14, 2016) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.
2 Kinder Morgan website, available at
http://www kindermorgan.com/pages/business/gas_pipelines/west/EPNG_MP (last accessed November 15, 2016).
3 Id.



CPF No. 4-2016-1005
Page 2
actions it had taken in response to the Notice. Further, the company paid the proposed civil
penalty of $110,700, as provided in 49 C.F.R. § 190.227. Respondent did not request a hearing
and therefore has waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
In its Response, EPNG did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part
192, as follows:
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.463(a), which states:
§ 192.463 External corrosion control: Cathodic protection.
(a) Each cathodic protection system required by this subpart must
provide a level of cathodic protection that complies with one or more of the
applicable criteria contained in appendix D of this part. If none of these
criteria is applicable, the cathodic protection system must provide a level of
cathodic protection at least equal to that provided by compliance with one
or more of these criteria.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.463(a) by failing to provide a level
of cathodic protection (CP) on Line 1300 that complies with the applicable criteria contained in
appendix D of Part 192. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent identified the section
of pipeline on Line 1300 Plains to San Juan, between milepost (MP) 53 0+00 to MP 122 0+00,
as being protected by applying the 100 mV polarization decay criteria. PHMSA reviewed the
annual surveys, which indicated the protection was below the level of CP that complies with the
applicable criteria. From 2012 through 2014, 37 test points had pipe-to-soil reads that did not
meet the 100 mV polarization shift. The records did not demonstrate that a minimum of 100 mV
of cathodic polarization between the structure surface and a stable reference electrode contacting
the electrolyte was maintained.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.463(a) by failing to provide a
level of CP on Line 1300 that complies with the applicable criteria contained in appendix D of
Part 192.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a), which states:
§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.
(a) Each pipeline that is under cathodic protection must be tested at
least once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months,
to determine whether the cathodic protection meets the requirements of
§192.463. However, if tests at those intervals are impractical for
separately protected short sections of mains or transmission lines, not in
excess of 100 feet (30 meters), or separately protected service lines, these
pipelines may be surveyed on a sampling basis. At least 10 percent of



CPF No. 4-2016-1005
Page 3
these protected structures, distributed over the entire system must be
surveyed each calendar year, with a different 10 percent checked each
subsequent year, so that the entire system is tested in each 10-year period.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a) by failing to test each
pipeline that is under cathodic protection at least once each calendar year, but with intervals not
exceeding 15 months, to determine whether the cathodic protection met the requirements of
§ 192.463. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to perform annual surveys on
Lines 1104, 1112, 1113, 1208, 2134, the Dutch Flat Compressor Station underground piping
located in unit 55334 (Topock Area ACC), and Line 1300 - Roswell at MP 59 0+00 within the
required 15-month interval. The Line 1300 survey also skipped the 2012 calendar year. The
survey dates were as follows:
Line 1104 Line 1112 Line 1113 Line 1208 Line 2134 Line 1300 May 14-21, 2012 through September 1-4, 2013;
May 21-24, 2012 through September 5, 2013;
May 21-24, 2012 through September 5, 2013;
May 21-23, 2012 through September 5, 2013;
May 17, 2012 through September 4, 2013; and
August 28, 2011 through July 28, 2013.
In each instance the 15-month interval was exceeded.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation but clarified that the survey for the entire
Line 1300 was not skipped in the 2012 calendar year. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of
the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a) by failing to test each
pipeline that is under cathodic protection at least once each calendar year, but with intervals not
exceeding 15 months, to determine whether the cathodic protection met the requirements of
§ 192.463.
Item 10: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a), which states:
§ 192.743 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Capacity of relief
devices.
(a) Pressure relief devices at pressure limiting stations and pressure
regulating stations must have sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to
which they are connected. Except as provided in § 192.739(b), the
capacity must be consistent with the pressure limits of § 192.201(a). This
capacity must be determined at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at
least once each calendar year, by testing the devices in place or by review
and calculations.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a) by failing to determine the
necessary capacity of multiple relief devices at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least
once each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent did not determine the
capacity at the required intervals on the following devices:



CPF No. 4-2016-1005
Page 4
1) Kat Generator Fuel Gas at Lincoln 6552 Station (Reference Drawing/Record
Number: 1001-0849) - EPNG failed to verify the relief valve orifice ID and the outlet
size. As a result, the capacity calculation was found to be inaccurate for the calendar
years 2011, 2012, and 2013. EPNG initiated an investigation of this issue after the
PHMSA inspector's findings. This violation was corrected on October 13, 2014, and the
capacity was found to be adequate.
2) First Cut for Generator Fuel at Rio Vista 6577 Station (Reference Drawing/Record
Number: 1001-2215) - EPNG failed to provide capacity calculations for the calendar
years 2011, 2012, and 2013. EPNG initiated an investigation of this issue after the
PHMSA inspector's findings. This violation was corrected on October 13, 2014, and the
capacity was found to be adequate.
3) Generator Fuel Gas at Bondad 6210 Station (Reference Drawing/Record Number:
1000-8383) - EPNG failed to provide regulator calculated/input capacity calculations for
the calendar years 2011, 2012, and 2013. This violation was corrected on October 15,
2014, and the capacity was found to be adequate.
4) Line 1300/1301 - Women's Correctional Facility -DPC 20596 - MP 331 +4669
Regulator 1 Relief Valve 1 at Gallup 6538 Mainline Device (Reference Drawing/Record
Number: 1001-2497 & 1001-2498) - EPNG failed to provide capacity calculations for the
calendar years 2011 and 2012. The relief valve capacity summary sheet for 2013 was
based on assuming relief valve is series 80 type 81with orifice ID= 8 and required
verification of relief valve data. This issue was verified as a result of a PHMSA audit.
The issue was corrected on October 14, 2014, and the capacity was found to be adequate.
5) Turbine 2 Expansion Gas at White Rock 6597 Station (Reference Drawing/Record
Number: 1000-8405) - EPNG failed to verify the Inlet Pressure and Maximum Allowable
Operating Pressure (MAOP) upstream during calendar years 2011 and 2013. As a result,
the capacity calculation was found inaccurate (based on 10/29/2014 report). EPNG did
not verify the capacity calculation in 2012. EPNG corrected this violation on October 15,
2014, and the capacity was found to be adequate.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a) by failing to determine
the necessary capacity of multiple relief devices at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least
once each calendar year.
Item 11: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(a), which states:
§ 192.805 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.
The program shall include provisions to:
(a) Identify covered tasks . . . .



CPF No. 4-2016-1005
Page 5
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(a) by failing to develop, follow
and identify certain covered tasks in its written Operator Qualification (OQ) program. EPNG’s
OQ program does not include provisions to identify the covered task of loading, launching,
receiving, and unloading in-line inspection (ILI) smart tools used to perform integrity
assessments to meet the requirements of § 192. 937(c)(1). Specifically, the Notice alleged that
EPNG stated that the Legacy El Paso and Kinder Morgan natural gas pipelines do not have a
specific task for launching and receiving ILI tools for both in-service and out-of-service
pipelines. Loading, launching, receiving, and unloading ILI tools are covered maintenance tasks
and meet the four part test required by § 192.801(b). They are performed on a pipeline facility,
are operations and maintenance tasks, are performed as a requirement of 49 C.F.R. § 192.805
within the integrity management requirements, and they affect the operations and integrity of the
pipeline.
When the PHMSA inspector inquired about the covered tasks for loading, launching, receiving
and unloading ILI tools, an EPNG representative stated that the Legacy El Paso and Kinder
Morgan natural gas pipelines do not have a specific task for launching and receiving ILI tools.
EPNG further stated that the company uses a combination of natural gas pipeline operator
qualification tasks for in-line tool inspection projects. The PHMSA inspector requested EPNG
to provide a list of specific covered tasks that encompass the steps required for pigging
operations such as isolating pipeline barrels, relieving pressure, inserting or removing internal
devices, pressurizing barrel and launching/receiving internal devices. EPNG identified the
following covered tasks from its OQ program:
• 004.01.01: Corrosion Monitoring - Atmospheric, External, and
Internal: General;
• 04.01.02: Corrosion Monitoring -Atmospheric, External, and
Internal: Offshore Pipelines;
• 08.01.01: Locating pipelines;
• 14.10. 01: Line Markers;
• 14.11.03: Pipeline Shutdown, Startup or Pressure Change;
Operating Identified Valve(s);
• 14.20.01: Valve Maintenance: Inspection & Partial Operation,
• 14.20.02: Valve Maintenance: Maintenance;
• 18.01.01: Pressure Regulating, Limiting, & Relief Device -
O&M; and
• 27.01.1: Gas control.
Upon review, the PHMSA inspector determined that these tasks do not encompass the training
and qualification requirements specific to loading ILI tools, launching, receiving, and unloading
these tools from both in-service and out of service lines.
Specifically, tasks 004.01.01, 04.01.02, 08.01.01, 14.10.01, 14.11.03, 14.20.01, 14.20.02,
18.01.01 and 27.01.01 did not encompass the steps required for pigging operations. They did not
have requirements for identifying the procedures, practices, and equipment needed for
conducting pigging operations; the identification of associated valves; steps for associated
isolation and lockout/tagout procedures (isolating the barrel from pipeline); relieving pressure



CPF No. 4-2016-1005
Page 6
within the barrel and/or, inserting or removing internal devices into or from the barrel,
pressurizing the barrel to pipeline pressures; launching, monitoring, and/or receiving or
removing ILI tools; nor realigning all identified valves to normal operations. These covered
tasks did not reflect the marked differences in pigging operations on in-service and out-of-
service lines such as use of product to propel the ILI tool and specific Abnormal Operating
Conditions that individuals performing loading, launching, receiving, and unloading need to be
qualified to perform.
The PHMSA inspector reviewed the Kinder Morgan Procedure Operations and Maintance
(O&M) 235: Pigging Operations (Revised date January 1, 2006), section 4 Training which
states, "Review this procedure and other relevant procedures before pigging projects. Document
all training in the employee's local file." No covered task in The Kinder Morgan OQ Program
Appendix A Table of Gas Covered Tasks (Revised date: April 30, 2014) reference procedure
O&M 235. The Kinder Morgan Procedure O&M 916 In-Line Inspections does not reference
covered tasks that are necessary for qualification to perform ILI runs.
It should be noted that on April 1, 2013, EPNG reported an Abnormal Operation Incident
# 201304017437 (EPNG Dimmitt Station unit 2 discharge relief valve event) due to improper
block valve operation during pig launching operation at 5793 Springlake, Texas. The root cause
investigation performed by EPNG attributed the incident to a lack of knowledge.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(a) by failing to develop,
follow and identify certain covered tasks in its written OQ program.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.
§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the
degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect
that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of
Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may
consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of
subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total
civil penalty of $110,700 for the violations cited above.
Item 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $53,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.463(a), for failing to provide a level of CP on Line 1300 that complies with the applicable
criteria contained in appendix D of Part 192. EPNG neither contested the allegation nor



CPF No. 4-2016-1005
Page 7
presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly,
having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil
penalty of $53,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.463(a). Payment for this Item was received
on August 24, 2016.
Item 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $23,700 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.465(a), for failing to test each pipeline that is under cathodic protection at least once each
calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine whether the CP met the
requirements of § 192.463. EPNG neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or
argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the
record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $23,700 for
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.465(a). Payment for this Item was received on August 24, 2016.
Item 10: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $33,800 for Respondent’s violation of 49
C.F.R. § 192.743(a), for failing to determine the necessary capacity of multiple relief devices at
intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. EPNG neither contested
the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed
penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I
assess Respondent a civil penalty of $33,800 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.743(a). Payment
for this Item was received on August 24, 2016, which was paid on August 24, 2016.
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $110,700.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 3, 10, and 11 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.463(a), 192.743(a), and 192.805(a), respectively. Under 49
U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or
operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established
under chapter 601. The Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the following actions
to address Item 11:
Subsequent to the inspection, and in consultation with PHMSA Southwest Region
inspectors, EPNG implemented Kinder Morgan OQ Task 14.11.05 – Launching and
Receiving Internal Devices. This task was created on July 7, 2015, and became effective
on October 15, 2015. As required by 49 C.F.R. § 192.805, on October 2, 2015, EPNG
contacted PHMSA’s Information Resources Manager and notified PHMSA of the
change. EPNG also provided PHMSA with a task summary.
Accordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,
the compliance terms proposed in the Notice for Item 11 are not included in this Order.
As for the remaining compliance terms, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49
C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with



CPF No. 4-2016-1005
Page 8
the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 192.463(a) (Item 3), Respondent must review and
modify appropriate procedures as necessary to ensure compliance with the
regulations. EPNG shall perform and document the appropriate tests to show that the
protection that is being applied meet one of the applicable criteria.
2. With respect to the violation of § 192.743(a) (Item 10), Respondent must perform a
survey of the overpressure protection devices currently installed on its natural gas
pipeline system. The survey is to evaluate the overpressure protection devices to
collect and/or verify data such as inlet and outlet size, the orifice area and coefficient
of actual discharge in order to perform sizing calculations. If deficiencies are
observed during the calculation of sizing capacities, EPNG must integrate the
findings and verify that the regulator and relief devices installed on the facilities have
adequate capacities required by 49 CFR §192.743. If the capacity is found to be
insufficient, EPNG must install/modify the equipment to provide the required
capacity.
3. Respondent must provide PHMSA with documentation that verifies completion of
Compliance Order Items 1 and 2 above within 180 days following the receipt of the
final order.4
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.
In addition, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217,
Respondent is requested (not mandated) to take the following action:
EPNG should maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated
with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to R. M. Seeley, Director,
Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is
requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with
preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and 2) total cost
associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not
to exceed $200,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the
Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.
4 In its Response, Respondent requested that the proposed compliance order be modified to allow Respondent 13
months from the receipt of the final order to provide PHMSA with documentation verifying completion of the
compliance order requirements for Item 10. That request is denied at this time, but if Respondent requires additional
time to comply with the compliance order requirements for Item 10, it may file an extension request with the
Director as set forth above.



CPF No. 4-2016-1005
Page 9
WARNING ITEMS
With respect to Items 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12, the Notice alleged probable violations of 49
§§ 191.5(a), 192.459, 192.475(b), 192.605(a), 192.736(c), 192.707(a), 192.735(a), 192.739(a),
and 192.805(b), respectively, but did not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these
items. Therefore, these are considered to be warning items. The warnings were for:
49 C.F.R. § 191.5(a) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to give notice at the
earliest practical moment following discovery of each incident as defined in 49
C.F.R. § 191.3. Specifically, the Notice alleged that EPNG reported eight § 191.3
incidents for the years 2010 through 2013 for Inspection System #1720. Incident
#20110308-16140 in PHMSA Unit 15144 exceeded the notification period of two
hours. The National Response Center notification was made four hours and 45
minutes following the incident.
49 C.F.R. § 192.459 (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to perform a visual
examination on the segment of exposed buried pipeline (Line 1104) searching for
evidence of deteriorated coating and/or external corrosion. Specifically, Kinder
Morgan O&M Procedure 918, Inspecting for Atmospheric Corrosion, section 3.2,
Atmospheric Corrosion Monitoring and Inspection Frequency states, “[b]uried or
submerged pipe that has become exposed to the atmosphere (e.g. by erosion,
changing water levels) must be initially inspected and documented on O&M Form
OM200-02 - Pipeline Examination Report, then inspected for evidence of
atmospheric corrosion according to the frequencies required by this section while
the pipe is exposed . . . .”
Work Order (WO) #12-4965319 provided by EPNG was for a patrol conducted on
January 18, 2013. Line 1104 had been exposed by runoff waters following a
rainstorm. A photo attached to the patrol record showed the exposure. A follow-
up WO (#13-319519) was created, but no form OM200-02 was found
documenting that the inspection (i.e. visual examination) was performed prior to
the reburial of the pipeline. A visual examination of the coating on the exposed
portion of Line 1104 was not performed.
49 C.F.R. § 192.475(b) (Item 5) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect the
internal surface of a section of a cut out pipe for evidence of internal corrosion.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that EPNG was unable to locate and provide
records to verify that the internal pipe surface inspection was performed. When
reviewing Project AFE 63171 involving the excavation, inspection and
recondition of 420 feet of Line 3201, the PHMSA inspector learned EPNG
observed extensive lamination during the ultrasonic thickness (UT) wall survey.
As a result, EPNG decided to cut out and replace 41 feet of pipe. A review of the
Pipeline Examination Report – Integrity Management Program (IMP) (Form
OM200-02) revealed EPNG marked “N/A - Inside Surface of Pipe Not Exposed.”
EPNG personnel stated the replacement of pipe project was under Project AFE
91222. Upon review of Project AFE 91222, PHMSA found the Pipeline



CPF No. 4-2016-1005
Page 10
Examination Report marked “N/A - Inside Surface of Pipe Not Exposed.” EPNG
stated they would investigate further to locate records. On July 7, 2014, EPNG
provided a corrected Pipeline Examination Report along with the qualification
records for the employee who was said to have performed internal inspection.
When the PHMSA inspector questioned EPNG personnel about the revised IMP
Form OM200-02, they stated the form was corrected after the PHMSA inspector
brought it their attention.
49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 192.736(c) (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s
alleged failure to follow procedures and maintain the gas detection and alarm
equipment at San Juan compressor station as required by §192.736(c) and Kinder
Morgan Engineering Design Manual E0200 Compression. Specifically, Kinder
Morgan Engineering Design Manual Procedure E0200 Compression, section 17.1
Gas Detectors states, “[g]as detectors with high and low alarm set points shall be
installed in all compressor buildings and in all turbine engine enclosures. The low
set point shall be in conformance with Company O&M Procedure 550 - Testing
Gas and Fire Detection Systems. This alarm shall provide a visual and audible
warning inside the compressor building. To warn personnel approaching the
compressor building, visual alarm(s) shall be installed outside the building or
enclosure consisting of a minimum of two strobe lights, one each on opposite
corners of the building, located so that at least one light is clearly visible from all
building entrances. . . .” Kinder Morgan Procedure O&M 550 Testing Gas and
Fire Detection Systems, section 2 Scope states, “[t]his procedure outlines
minimum requirements for calibrating and testing gas and fire detection equipment
installed at Company owned and/or Company-operated facilities.”
On June 18, 2014, a PHMSA inspector randomly selected one detector at the San
Juan Compressor Station building for the field test. During the test, the gas
detector was activated by applying a known concentration of gas in air to the
respective sensor. An emergency shut-down alarm was acknowledged at the
control room. However, the gas detector failed to initiate the visual alarm system
(strobe lights) inside and outside of the building. The visual alarm system (strobe
lights) was found not operational.
49 C.F.R. § 192.707(a)(1) (Item 7) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to place and
maintain pipeline markers as close as practical over each buried transmission line
at each crossing of a public road. Kinder Morgan Procedure O&M 205 Pipeline
Markers and Cover, section 3.1.1 Buried Pipelines, paragraph 3.1.1.2 All Buried
Pipelines (except as covered in 3.1.1.3 Alternative MAOP, Waiver, or Special
Permit pipelines) states, “[a]fter verification of pipeline location, place line
markers as close as practical over each buried pipeline, on each side of the edge of
public roads, railroads, and highway rights-of-way. Consider placing additional
signs in areas where third party damage to the pipe is possible. . . .”



CPF No. 4-2016-1005
Page 11
A PHMSA representative noticed line markers on Line 2121 within the median of
Marina Road were not installed where the pipeline crosses underneath Hualapai
Drive and Oliver Drive inside Bullhead City limits.
49 C.F.R. § 192.735(a) (Item 8) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to store a large
quantity of foam cleaning pigs (flammable/combustible materials) a safe distance
from the compressor building. Specifically, the Kinder Morgan Procedure O&M
119 Flammable and Combustible Liquid Storage, section 3.4.4 Storage in
Compressor Buildings states, “[f]lammable or combustible materials in quantities
beyond those required for a day's use or other than those normally used in
compressor buildings shall not be stored in compressor buildings.”
During the field inspection at the Williams Compressor Station, the PHMSA
representative found a large quantity of foam cleaning pigs stored inside the C
Plant Building. The C Plant Building was the active compressor unit at the time of
the inspection. The foam cleaning pigs are flammable combustible materials.
EPNG Flagstaff personnel promptly moved the foam pigs out of the C Plant
Building during the week of July 21, 2014.
49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a)(3) (Item 9) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to demonstrate
the Relief Valve on the Auxiliary Generator at the Roswell Station was set at the
correct pressure. Specifically, Kinder Morgan Procedure O&M 703 Pressure
Limiting and Relief Devices and Inspections, section 3.1 MAOP, MAEP, and Set
Points states, “[e]ach facility shall include adequate overpressure protection in its
original design, including: MAOP documentation, overpressure protection
equipment and associated documentation, and set points for each device. . . .”
On July 23, 2014, the PHMSA inspector randomly selected a first cut fuel relief
valve at the Roswell Station to verify the set point in the field. According to
Kinder Morgan's last test on August 13, 2013, the relief valve #0043 set point was
left at 178 pounds per square inch gauge (psig). During the field inspection, the
PHMSA inspector observed the relief valve fail to relieve pressure at 200 psig. As
a result, Kinder Morgan personnel isolated this relief valve by lock out/tag out.
On July 27, 2014, Kinder Morgan sent an email to PHMSA which stated that on
July 25, 2014, the pilot was rebuilt and the relief valve was confirmed to relieve
properly at 178 psig.
During a meeting with Kinder Morgan representatives on October 16, 2014,
Kinder Morgan advised the PHMSA inspectors that relief valve #0043 was
installed and set at 178 psig to protect the downstream MAOP of the line that fed
the domestic Camp housing, station units, boiler, and the auxiliary fuel for the
station. In 2007 a high pressure fuel line was installed to supply the station
auxiliary fuel gas. Although both parallel regulators set points changed from 145
psig and 150 psig to 125 psig and 130 psig, respectively, the relief valve #0043 set
point remained at 178 psig.



CPF No. 4-2016-1005
Page 12
49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b) (Item 12) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to ensure
through evaluation that an employee was qualified to perform a covered task.
Specifically, the Kinder Morgan OQ Program section 1 Scope states, “KM's OQ
Program is designed to ensure that all individuals working on KM's DOT-
regulated pipeline facilities are OQ-qualified to perform specific covered tasks, to
document that qualification and to reduce the probability and consequences of
incidents and accidents. . . .” Also, section 3.1.2 Initial OQ Qualification states,
“[i]ndividual(s) will receive training, as appropriate, in preparation for initial
qualification evaluations, as part of KM's training program. Trainees will not be
allowed to independently perform covered tasks until qualification evaluations are
passed.”
While reviewing records associated with an Encroachment/One Call ticket, a
PHMSA inspector observed that EPNG received a line-locate request (ticket
#2013500358) on December 9, 2013, with the work start date on December 12,
2013. While installing a water line, the contractor uncovered two feet of 30-inch
pipeline. An EPNG employee conducted the visual inspection of the external
coating on December 9, 2013. The employee completed Form OM200-02:
Pipeline Examination Report indicating he visually inspected the coating and
found it in good condition. The PHMSA inspector reviewed the qualification
records for the individual and found the individual was not qualified to perform
this covered task. EPNG failed to ensure through evaluation that the employee
was qualified to perform the covered task. The employee was unqualified for
covered task 004.01.03: Visual Inspection of Buried Pipe and Components When
Exposed. EPNG stated that the employee was qualified on covered task 14.09.01:
Inspection: Compliance with Procedures. When the PHMSA inspector reviewed
the "Training Modules" for covered task 14.09.01, it did not encompass those steps
required for the inspection of buried pipe and components when exposed.
According to Kinder Morgan OQ Program Appendix A: Table of Gas Covered
Tasks (Revised April 30, 2014), covered task 04.01.03 references Kinder Morgan
Procedures O&M 903: External Corrosion Control for Buried or Submerged
Pipelines, and O&M 918: Inspecting for Atmospheric Corrosion; whereas covered
task 14.09.01 references Kinder Morgan Procedures O&M 204: Construction
Near Company Facilities, Kinder Morgan Construction Inspection Manual
Essential Requirement of the Pipeline Inspector and Cl040: Unloading, Hauling,
and Stringing Materials.
If the aforementioned covered task 004.01.03 was performed by a non-qualified
individual, Kinder Morgan's OQ Program Appendix A: Table of Gas Covered
Tasks (revised April 3, 2014) requires a span of control of one qualified individual
to one non-qualified individual. According to the inspection documentations
provided by KM, a qualified employee was not present to observe or to direct this
individual at the work site.



CPF No. 4-2016-1005
Page 13
EPNG presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to address
the cited items. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection,
Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
December 29, 2016
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

420161005_NOPV PCP PCO_07212016_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
July 21, 2016
Mr. Gary Buchler
El Paso Natural Gas Company
1001 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002-5089
CPF 4-2016-1005
Dear Gary Buchler:
From November 19, 2013 through August 22, 2014, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter
601 of 49 United States Code inspected the El Paso Natural Gas West-North (EPNG) pipeline
system records and facilities located in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
As a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline
Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable
violations are:
1. §191.5 Immediate notice of certain incidents.
(a) At the earliest practicable moment following discovery, each operator shall give
notice in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section of each incident as defined
in §191.3.



2. EPNG failed to give notice at the earliest practical moment following discovery of each
incident as defined in §191.3.
PHMSA reviewed the incident reports for the years 2010-2013 for Inspection System
#1720. There were 8 eight reports for thi
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 72327